HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/15/1977PETALUMA .CITY. JPLANUING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY !15',.'.:197T
REGULAR:MEET.ING 7.3'0 P.M.. .
CITY., COUNCIL CHAMBERS ±, CITY. ;HALL, EETALUMA,• "CALhFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm Head. Harberson` Horc za. P;0 Wa ers., Wright
�.. Pp�.~ g t
ABSENT':; .. Comm. Bond
STAFF Ronald';.F Hall_Planni '.r hector..
i
APPROVAL OF MINUTES • The minutes of =February 1, 1977 were approved%with the.
fold` owing' corrections, as; recom 'ended ,by Comm: :Horc `
Page 2,,, ,paragraph 5;; Lucille °.Harrison: was - now ...in .doubt
whether she • wanted a .,shopp.iag,, _center .: Page.-3 ,� .5 .John . Kerrigan
stated aruckers ,at ,the wWashington .Square Shopping'• Cepaer,:- - ` ` Page 3., . last para-
graph;, lights + tha 'would .illuminate the park -ng; : area: would'' be ; designs ed so as
to .deflect:
SONOMA �EOUNTY .• Mr,:: Hall explained a reques "t ,had been; filed -with .,.the • .
c
REFERRAL/ ',,,Sonoma: Co.unty Planning Department - "`by`••Jb.hn:...Mill ken..to,
JOHN MhLLIKEN '::`° rezone ,pro,per.ty located ; at 35;90` Petaluma._Blvd North, E from' C3P,. /B5 (General• Commercial) ' to C2 %B5. (Retail Com,
mefcial), to. fallow for sma11 retail commercial shops in
the;, existing;..buildings; after, _ remodeling,.
Comm Rdiberson questioned, the status' of the Petaluma° Blvd North Study? Mr..
Hall s ated .two •meetings. had' b.e.en held with the. peophe in the area,, and it was
the general.,, consensus ^ o:f the property. owners that the density of the- 'area.
remain in .its present :,state. He -added the City did not wish -,to. encourage more
"retail :busin.esses ..on _Petaluma Blvd. North until , a study had been .completed by
the Count y Planning Department to determine if •services, cou`ld•.be . provided to
the
omm. P0 a, left
recommendin -ven al • er bea forwarded to the ' Sonoma' Courity s.
Plannng:zDepar,tmdnt
C
g'., of the :proposed. rezoning request •in that the:. ,proposal does
not to..the,City.'s General Plan and -E D ;P. •Comm•. Head seconded the
mot ion,-
, .. - ., . - •; ,
AYES,,., • .6 NOES ,0 -•- ABSENT. 1.
Comm Waters: asked about the., status of Corona Road ,_
, _ 'Mr Hall stated the 'new
dorona „rRoad ,alignment will ; bypass sthe M111,ken, 'pr'operty,. '
RICHARD WI•LLIAM3, FOR Mr° ; : Hall stated that three proposed, s ± chemes.',.had been
,THE MAHONEY. CO, , :IzNC %•; submitted by.• the.. develo, p, er. ",fo•r,..the,..Baywoo`d. . n
SITE DESIGN. ,REVIEW Center or-the most - carry •:fort -h the• -xecom
(C,ontinued) `;;, mendati.ons, made at o,int •meeting"•. -of -t-M Architectural
and „,Site „Design Review . ;Commi't'tee, Planning .staff -and
p volunteer c. t committee; to •d se'uss. alternate site
t
designs for` the prgp0 - d 'shopping >cent'er:
PETALUMA CITY' PLANNING: =MIN,UTES FEBRUARY 15, 19,7;T
RICHARD "..WILLIAM5 FOR -. Mr:. Hall' informed the Commissioners an :appeal of the
THE MAHONEY 'CO 4"'.i. INC.,/. Use, Permit has been filed with the: °City Clerk. He
SITE DESIGN- REVIEW-_' sta,ted.lthat .it •..wasp not `f- -'air to, not •,:consider the. -S'ite -
(Continued). Design :for th'e development.. An action could be taken
,on. 'the• Site _De _s ign ' an d. perhaps a. Aeterm nation made 6
how ;many,.people, were actually opposed to the shopping
center,.
Mr'. `Lester Meu George'Meu &; Associates, - displayed three schemes fpr ;the, , shop=
ping - center',, and added .:that, landscaping and::fenting ha'd not. 'been incorporated
in, the 'schemes but F ; were unders,too to lie a part of the site <design cond ons,.
Scheme ,A F.r:y's'Market to located at the northeast corner` :of tfie property '
with Eayles ''D.rug. nursery..located along! Perry. ,Lane..:..Sma1•i (sho
to be to.cated • between Fry" s' ; Market .and:. Payless Drug;, •and :other:.:small
. ,::shop's to be located at ? „the ',easterly s de' - of- the•pr- operty ?�
'Refuse °ands truck. oari ng and unload -iti to: lie at the •rear..of ,th'e. ;
; property , and accessible by Perry Lane,. ,
Scheme,'B'. -. Payless Drug, ,and Frys's Market- to. *be located the•,same as •n.'Sch'eme. A
with small shops located' .on the •east s dre of Fry!'s Market - along
Alde-rwop,d :Court - -..and ,,o;ther mall shops to- be ,loca "ted _along :the front
•easterly .sid'e. of: -:the *property.•. Refuse and.-truck loath ng -dg in
S clieme' .A .
Scheme ' G. , - Fry's Market ,and .` Payless Drug Store.-t6 be T1ip= .f'lopp:ed, located. in
each other 's: place.. , A driveway •access to .the, .nursery <as p;rop.osed
•
.along, the e'asterly side oft .the':p.roperty. together •with, 10= foot:•.
wall. An - Baywood, Drive would b e 1o,cated. :om, the':.
s ..• easterly. side :of. - the - proper.t z•Refiise and - ;truck loading "as in.
Scheme, 9
Mr. Meu _,explained thei proposal to ,'locate •Payless'• Nursery `along the easterly_
side of , . property as shown in Scheme C would, act as. a :Buffer for ,houses
along Alderwood Court, and the •dr veway would •provide :,traffic circula -'tion, for -
tl e .nursery,.- ,He further explained that parking spa`ces.:are 'propottioned o,ut `to
each tenan:tT. n.a shopping• center and. �the. regulates. the .minimum amount
parking spaces :required;.;` .'He stated the developer 'wa's :in agreement w th..the =
proposed' plantings "and, the. fast, growing trees to, be planted' at the '.rear o:f .the
property, .would ;provide privacy for. second* story ,hous•es A. "T' type truck •r -route
was proposed dt the rear of :the. property -place of. a, •turnaround 'movement:. 11.
Refuse containers -would •be 'placed nea Perry, Lane.` :Mr-., :Meu added, there is „'s'ome
disadv,antage.' , C ih that ;parkin'g ;.for Payless” :Drug would b °e cut back
considerably. ;and. this tenant• is :desirous of lhaving parking-, .in the ,front .of the
s•tore... The..10- foot, wall prop.osed.- along they east property. line near . -the ,street
would .create a dangerou's 'sight distancce situation for Haywood ;traffic..
Mr. Meu ;further explained tha,t.'Scheme A. provides • -f or: a pedestrian access to_the
shopping !center ,The shops ,loca•ted in the :center ;of the project` also 'wou
accumulate. traffic ,;f both, Yayl ,Drug and Fry:!a. Market.. Scheme.xB' shows .
that „Payless Nursery would ,be located Perry :Lane and a, pedestrian access
for - neighbo.r.hosod ,traf•fis is, provided to allow for cross traf;f `which should'; be,
relatively Gsafe. There, would, be "T” type' truck:_loading and unloading, to the;
rear of. the mp
,property,�along_W °th .,eloyee• :parking. He added that most of the
smaller shops `have 'their goods delivered to the front of their stores.
: -2-
A4
1
PETALLTMA CITY PLANNING' COMMISS -ION' MINUTES, FEBRUARY 1�5 • 1'977'
• R WILLI'AMS. 'FOR Mr.. Hall :,commented. Ghat 'the three 'designs were, superior
THE MAHONEY: CO.. "'ING. % to& the orig -inal p:r ` .The bank; proposed in. the
- 1 h .._.
,SITE`.DE,SIGNf`REU,IEW: fi'r'st design' had:.:been ehmina and the on y L. ao
(;Continued) be checked 'on: ;these s
-- chee'
ms • would be a, determination- of
�.�. adequate;- `parking. He stated . that the scheme accepted
by the C'ommis'sion .should, `be labeled Exhbi A and
w ,
become= the final, document
Comm ,Wr' t'questioned if' a variance °should be, requested the 10 -:foot
� igh
fence+ Mr. Hall stated the. ; prop : erty.:owner:s have r
pompted the,need for a I& '
foot..fence acid we: wou1'd s bly not be, challenged f:r,om_ a "'legal- - standpoint fo•r
imposing •a .1'0, ,f,oat fence .even though:. it vat es�rfrom o.ur normal ,ordinance ; pro
cedures. ,Comm.. Head stated -the requirement' of a 10 foot 'fence .is in Violation
of:' the' Zoning O.rdina.nde _and, .:quoted 'Sections 23 -205, 23 207 . 24.1.500 in that'
fences;,: walls, 'hedges.;,and;.•retainng walls :shall be no, higher ,than s,ix feet,,:.
except, as is.pecif;i.ed in'- ;Section :.23 -:205. He .added that,' no obstruction in excess
of 3, feeet.,, .6" inches in height shall. be• located. on' a corner ,lot within .,the front
yard :and• streetvsiddy td ,setback area, except :.that trees shall be p.e.rmit,ted
Comm.. - Popp. stated`if..',ahe _app:licant desires- to install a,10 . -foot fence
to.;accom
people PP ercial and•.,residential
•, modate the ; `eo le .to act as .a :.buffer. between the -cotmn osthe� he Zoning C Ord -
proper ties';. this .consideration ..would be in o. ositi
nance. Mr.' Hall stated the :matter_co.uld referred t, t y ' Attorney for
an. opinion,, =.:but Site; Design.. :cons;d'erations for the pro3ect could ,be :continued..
:Comm. :Wright ..stayed. `the -wall .would be sound,, noi•se;::light barrler, and when, an
applicant ..feels'. a .condition :requires a variance,, „ordinance requir.einents would
be me t.+ Comm. Head questioned the legality, of the- procedure _and ; ;if it °was,
contrary. to ,the Zoning °.Ordinance requirements? Comm,, Head stated that in .order
not' to :violate,..the, ordinance..a .fence should note exceed 42 inches, Ve ;should go
strictly by _the r equirements as stated' in,.'Sect on. 24.,. of the Zoning Or,d -.
nance. •...Comm-i P•op,p stated, :'that in, place of a board, type :fence, a vegetation,
fence. be used, .as- 'long as its' height did not_ exceed six . feet.
c ,K c
r ii a t
sated he was impressed : with the alternate.; design: plans as' .they
blems. that...were .encountered in the original plan. Of; -the
y
three;, schemes p.r,esent'ed, :S h&des..A and B are the, most logical" as they incorporate
the feature .of :no, truck, traffic,.:. This would prevent. any circular motion :of
trucks, and'- there :any space where trailers, could be. dropped off ;and
' ' h e..additonal. trees, would,•;cut
left.. - At. t . e .:
site fo,r` a ..week or two: Th
down on the, noise factor,` `Mr. Hall stated the..reason_,for the reverse. plan.
P P
ro osal is 'that : it would rovide mores ace.for trucks loading and: unloading
re ':of the
p. , P - ,
but..t
without having . to go' around the periphery of the proper,ty.,,. tie architects.
:
have.,also shown this could .be;ac'complished with Payless, in the same position it
was in the...£irst .,desrgn plan .,.That is =.perhaps;: the only reason, we .cons,id.ered
the fil_ p- .flop. of tithe 'bui:ldings'.. He believed, S theme s� and B 'wou-ld serve ,equally
well..as long as truck - traff'ic.co.uld . be stopped =from continuing around the
periphery of site,. Comm: Wright: commented the advantage to Schemes, A and B
is' the entrance..ao the = Comm., Popp stated this is the first time
since., :he has been °a Commissioner:':that he has •seen, a developer attempt ..to please
the people =as; much: as.,this;, .devel^opetj,�- and- �alL appearance this, developer
wants` ao' cooperate with. the- neighbor.hoo.d.•,
Mr.. Dennis Bryant stated he was ;opposed- to the shopping center, as a shopping
center and, expressed .concern on.`.how 'the food would be handled by the food
stores: in relation to:.•;rodents, and questioned .what water consumption would be
-3-
<:
.P.ETALUMA CITY PLANNING ''"COMMI$,SION - M NUTES'.- FEBRUARY :,111
S the _condi�toningr units as .far. •,aa .the
H air
THE MAHDONEYLCO.. INC. /':'water,
,; / , o sh rtage .:!. Comm. , Har.berson; (commented: that.,until
SITE DESIGN ,REUI ±EW' the: water emergency is,, over .:the i'ssuanc'e of ;building
(bContiriued`),:- - _ permits', would,°,be: controlled,'by tle, City. Cou .,;With
a,development:..of:, this size,,,_ stoppage because; of water
would nqt happen,: but landscaping would be delayed,
Comm, Horcz'a st;a'ted the developer . would no.t. -complete .and open the .center for
p P year° and -
er"ha` s another, ~by then we ;should hav_,e water'.
Comm: Wright stated the tenants 'were pin favor, .o f; ,S.cheme C ;with, the_ buildings
reversed on the site, ., Comm: HeadA .uestibned , if the,.10 foot fence 'would go
inside: ther..cyclone fence: , ' :.:Comm;.. ;Po ,p :said it would' and w °th, Payless-Nursery
l.o.ca.ted along .the•.easterly - side';of, the property',., toge:the °r. with . 10 -foot .wall:
there.. shou'ld no;t ,be any noise to...the neighboring properties , C- omm -iza
questioned :i_f Pay.,less Nursery. dealt w th::c'ontractors ,on large • or.:. small .scale,.
Mr ,Mein s_ta?ted `Payless .Nursery' deals heavily in. '•bagged goods: as.•'a major' sales
'i :tem,and ,.on holidays and certain weekends these, terns are ;br:ought in_;. by t�r- ailers
and auxiliar -.y, checkout, .are provided_ - inside , the nurser � '
y to disperse! these
goods,. Comm Horciza s. tated•,.Scheme- B places the -nursery . where ..trucks -will -
cT,f - e a - lot- - of, ,dotivi'ty?; :and Schemes A C appear- to be the "•most workable
_
- ' ,
•
Comm: •;Waters, stated 'three schemes have been. presented and, 'he :wo,uld_ake;to' have_.
-the developer .,come up;, with .a'.�concrete,..Site,. D.e'sigri. plan' that .could ;be 'reviewed
•by 'the "Commission: = Comm.." Horciza explained the keason:' for.. do.ing,.this is %be-
cause 'of opp:osit on by .,the iresidents "in the area. We are •trying to .comp.rom se.
where the shopping center ,would to be ..more. of a• neighborhood .shopping center-
•
but" that which °.wo.uld "of. commercial' < alue to, the •property' owner': We have '
acted ,.in wt he spirit d.R'. compromi qe and now.. iv& the: time_ to. consider a .d'es "ign plan .
for- the' project•., Comm.. Harber`s ori p: the
questioned• what scheme zis referable• to
citizens . He.• suggested :removing the traf f is away, Txom the: fence .line -' to. - make
the entrance and ekit .a's . -safe' .as ,.possible, ';and .placing the-:shops :to. another
location: . Mx .'..Williams stated tie did: not - mind .people' designing. his:,.center,. but.
. ,his , two.' tenants ". -Fr '
y s and P.ayles did' no,.t like he •reverse design proposal -.
Scheme B did no2t, do anything f6r. -him but Scheme A w sho in
, ould make a good pp g
center,. and ,solve .^
both. roblems. With reference .,to the fence,• ,he _would like to
p
d'o , wha;t'ever .is p`oss "ible: The: cost would •b:e about $3,00 a _square foot and. this
cost would : have ,to be; ; passed .ori..to everybody in • the, neighborhood: A& far 'as:
-, rddent• cont.r:ol, ;the; ;garbage -would be •in fully enclosed boxes.:,and' ther_ e oshould
,be .less rodents. °with, the center than there _°arel .now.
Comm Horci'za questioned' .the ,n'oise geriera from 'the air condiaionirig un
Mt'.- Williams stated' Fry,' s air :condi.tioning unit ,would;, be::.4t'owa -rds the „cen "te.r • of;
the site where .the loading..docks "are 'located, and, 'there w,ould: ,fencing :around'
Payless' unit .which will act a's.:•a barrier for • noise...,. Mr >::. ,Meu- ;stated • Payless
-,and- Fry "s '`Market.; will pgo in't`o a, detriand limitation air conditioning .system which
is on: time c -lock. basis,
Comm. P,o,p;p :moved to approve 'the -6i design of Scheme° A'• .with the conditions as
.
set ,forth .in the staff, repor;t - .December l6 •.1976,.: and. with "'the: seven <:condi=
t -ions set_ forth ; -in .the •.:sp,e:cia1 .meeting of :February 9, 1977 ".: The. motion. was
_
seconded ' by, Comm., Horciza, :. ..
AYES', "3' NOES' 3 ABSENT- -1 t.
_.4_
;Jr
P:ETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES,`.MRUARY 15 1'977
D WILLIAMS FOR Comm.`:Head''cast a
RICHAR `negative``vote stating the developer
THE MAHONEY CO.. ; 'IN G was-made-to comply to the requirements of the.fence
SITE ;DESIGN REVIEW:` which is contrary - - to the City Code:. -- Comm., Waters cast..
(Continued) , a negative. vote. stating :he did `no';t-..uriderstand the
differ-er,ce in. the ;three schemes.
Comm ;IHarber_son moved .to:.approve Scheme,C for the proposed',shopping .center with
the 16 conditions :.of. ;.,:aggroval:'.as .recommend'ed by .the "staff. concurred with by
the Architectural;, and.,.
Site, Review .Committee on, December 16. 1976, along -
with.0i 7'conditions of approval as recomiiended.by the.Arehitectural and Site
Design Review Committee on 'February '8,; 1977: " The motion, was seconded by Comm.
Popp. 'r
AYES, A NOES 2' ABSENT 1
DUANE . SHAW.,. E I,.'Q..! �Mr. Hall, expi -dined the tequesat by Duane .Shaw to allow
EVALUATION /'SITE ` fo = r a proposed ..office and shop building—to be located
DESIGN REVIEW,i at P-,erry's Trailer : S'ales, "'12,95 Lakeville Highway°. The
applicant - proposes to replace existing office and
sho -p 'build=ing -with a ,new struc=ture. The site is one of
two lots which compose the Perry's Trailer-sales yard
and .is rectangular- rshaped, 'covering 15,570 square feet.-
Comm. '.Horc.iza questioned if the - applicant had. any objection. to .the pr:ovis 'ions
as far' .as trim and color schemes^ were,'concerned;: 'Mr. Shaw had no objection to
these conditions,; but -he .'did - question -the-, r,equirement. of a - fi = re hydrant. Item
4 _regar=ding ;t"rees: thatach. a ' 40 'feet to be planted 'along the full
lengthl. of the rear pery. there e. is a sewer- e as e m ent
running along' the' rear' -of the proper . y*. "
The. public .hearing-,,was opened 'to .,consider, the Environmental Impact .Question-
na'ire.; .. No.. comments 'were offered from; the audience and the 'public hearing was
closed .
AYES 6 'NOES' 0 ABSENT 1
Comm. Head .ques.tioned %the legal distance between fire hydr- ants ?, There is a
fire hydrant :located -in ,his, .5 ; f.00.t .easement ,approximately' '75 'feet from ahe rear
of the ,p,rop.erty. - .and the appl'icarit would :install a ;gate for a'cce'ssibility. to
thi& fire hydrant., Mr: Shaw 'stated there, are•: three.;hydrants in the vicinity;
it 1340 feet to., the .farthest point between en hydrants' and the ordinance requires
350feet between_h Y .H
drants: Mr...al'L ,stated this condition, could be ',handled on
an, .appeal basis,. Comm. Hor:ciza :s- toted; landscaping ishould not be required until
the water emergency,ha.s.ended. Mr-. Hall stated the applicant should write a
letterlto .the Planning Department requesting, that landscaping of, the property
be rescinded until the ' wat -er emergency is over.
. Comm. Waters moved to .approve the site design 'for the, proposed proj ect, with
conditions -of approval as recommended..by the staff and concurred. with by the
Architectural and Site 'Design Review Committee with the following changes:
-5-
�.-
�:' ,
`?�,